Posted on Dec 7, 2021
Former DC Guard Official Accuses Army Generals of Lying About Jan. 6 Response
1.38K
13
7
7
7
0
A former D.C. National Guard official is accusing two Army generals of lying under oath in congressional testimony about the military's response to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Col. Earl Matthews wrote in a 36-page memo to the House select committee investigating the attack that Gen. Charles Flynn, who served as deputy chief of staff for operations on Jan. 6, and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, the director of Army staff, “repeatedly misrepresented, understated, or misled” the House Oversight Committee and the Pentagon inspector general.
Col. Earl Matthews wrote in a 36-page memo to the House select committee investigating the attack that Gen. Charles Flynn, who served as deputy chief of staff for operations on Jan. 6, and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, the director of Army staff, “repeatedly misrepresented, understated, or misled” the House Oversight Committee and the Pentagon inspector general.
Former DC Guard Official Accuses Army Generals of Lying About Jan. 6 Response
Posted from nbcwashington.com
Washington
Congress
Riots
Investigation
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
MSG Thomas Currie
Yep, Randy, everyone knows that the Trump Cabal spent the last thirty years positioning and promoting officers throughout the military -- all completely hidden from the left -- just so they would be in position to support an eventual insurrection.
By the way, your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight and is cutting off the flow of blood to your brain.
By the way, your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight and is cutting off the flow of blood to your brain.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Capt Gregory Prickett - I don't doubt that one bit -- but guess what? Trump didn't make that happen.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Capt Gregory Prickett - Oh really? Then perhaps you should read the post you are replying to!
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Capt Gregory Prickett - I am completely aware of what the article says. I am also aware that the article reflects only the statement of one individual about what other people said. Overall, I am not surprised and I tend to believe the colonel's recollection is closer to the truth than the sworn testimony of the two general officers.
BUT NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION because I never said anything about the article or about whose version was correct. IF YOU BOTHER TO READ MY COMMENT that you say you were replying to, you will see that I ONLY discussed the totally asinine remark that SFC Hellenbrand made.
I really don't mind if someone disagrees with what I say, but I do get upset when people want to argue with me about things I never said.
BUT NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION because I never said anything about the article or about whose version was correct. IF YOU BOTHER TO READ MY COMMENT that you say you were replying to, you will see that I ONLY discussed the totally asinine remark that SFC Hellenbrand made.
I really don't mind if someone disagrees with what I say, but I do get upset when people want to argue with me about things I never said.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
if this were a true nonpartisan investigation I would likely believe the findings but this is a farce, led by the Democrats that are trying to deflect what is going on with the country with the incompetent leadership.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google